1 2025:CGHC:8101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 922 of 2025 1 - Krishna Kumar Verma S/o. Late Bhagwan Ram Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o. Ward No. 59, Hari Nagar, Katul Board, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sunil Kumar Verma S/o. Late Bhagwan Ram Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o. Ward No. 59, Hari Nagar, Katul Board, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o. Late Bhagwan Ram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o. Ward No. 59, Hari Nagar, Katul Board, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001 2 - National Highway Authority Of India G-5 And 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075 3 - The Collector Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer Durg, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 5 - Saheb Rao Dhaise S/o. Shri Mukund Kumar Dhaise Aged About 36 Years R/o. Ward No. 64, Newai Bhata Bhilai, Post Newai Bhata Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.19 14:53:04 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent/Union of India : Mr. Rishab Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G.I. For Respondent/N.H.A.I. : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities for payment of compensation with respect to the land of the petitioners which has been used for construction of National Highway. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that in the year 2014, the mother of petitioners purchased a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 754/3 which was subsequently mutated into Khasra No.754/23 and after settlement, the land was renumbered as Khasra No. 297, admeasuring area of 3600 sq. ft., from respondent No. 5/Saheb Rao Dhaise, located at Village Borigarkha (now Kargadih). He further submits that the NHAI has utilized the land of the petitioners for construction of a road without acquiring the same and no payment of compensation has been made to the petitioners towards the said land till date. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that earlier the land of the petitioners was owned by respondent 3 No.5 and the said land has been acquired and the award against the said land has been passed in favour of respondent No.5, hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable at this stage. The petitioners have to approach before the appropriate authority for apportionment of the compensation under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and pleadings made by the petitioner. 5. From perusal of Annexure P/2 which is a notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 reflecting the name of respondent No.5 at serial No.11 of the said notification, it appears that the name of respondent No.5 has been included and the award must have been passed in favour of him who was the earlier owner of the land in question. 6. Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 reads as under:- “3H. Deposit and payment of amount- (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated." 7. A careful perusal of Section 3H(4) of the NH Act shows that any dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any 4 part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. As such, once there is a dispute as to whom the amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority has no option except to refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated, as the dispute would be taken cognizance of by the civil Court and it has to be decided in accordance with law. 8. Section 3H(4) of the NH Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court very recently in the matter of Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau1 and it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so, and Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge. Their Lordships observed as under: - "33. We are of the view that when it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge. 34. Our final conclusion is as under If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 787 5 part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court 9. In view of the above and the dispute of the petitioners that the amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent No.5, the petitioners are at liberty to approach before the appropriate authority under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep